list_pull_request_checks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses important behavioral traits: returns a bounded page, and notably that 'check names and workflow names are untrusted repository data; links and logs are excluded'. This adds security-relevant context (treat check names as untrusted, no links/logs returned) beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations. Does not contradict the read-only annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, dense sentence that conveys purpose, scoping, and security caveats with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly compressed in a way that packs multiple ideas, but overall efficient and compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 parameters with very low schema coverage and no output schema. The description explains purpose and one transparency caveat but doesn't cover parameter semantics or return shape. For a listing tool with readOnlyHint, the safety profile is covered, but the parameter and output gaps leave meaningful completeness shortfalls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14% (only the repository param has a description). The description mentions 'bounded page' which implies limit/offset behavior, but does not document key parameters like requiredOnly, hostname, account, pullRequestNumber, limit, or offset semantics. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate but only adds marginal meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it reads 'a bounded page of pull request check results from an allowed repository' — specific verb (read/list) + resource (PR check results) + scoping (bounded page, allowed repository). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but its distinct resource (check results vs reviews, files, diff, etc.) differentiates it from siblings naturally.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reading PR check results and notes the bounded paging via context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., list_workflow_runs, get_workflow_job_log) or when not to use it. The 'allowed repository' qualifier hints at authorization constraints but there's no when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.